Chamber and committees

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We have divided the questions up into various themes, so the questions will come in blocks. The first theme that the committee will ask about is policy development. We will, in particular, discuss the powers to be found in paragraphs 40(4), 49(5), 50(7) and 59 of the schedule as well as sections 10, 11 and 12.

In relation to a number of the delegated powers, as confirmed in your response to the committee’s letter, very few policy development discussions have taken place on issues such as the assessment of compensation and the right to buy. Can you provide some context as to why those discussions have not yet taken place and why they were not carried out at an earlier stage in the planning of the bill?

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Under item 5, we are taking evidence from Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary is accompanied by three Scottish Government officials: Fiona Leslie, who is the head of the agricultural holdings and women in agriculture team; Andy Crawley, who is from the Scottish Government legal directorate; and Andy Proudfoot, who is the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill team leader. I welcome you all to the meeting. In particular, I welcome back to the committee Andy Proudfoot, who previously was a clerk to the committee. It is very nice to see you again, Andy, albeit that you are very much on the other side of the table this time round.

I invite Tim Eagle to speak.

Thank you. I remind all attendees not to worry about switching on their microphones, as that will be done for you.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make her opening remarks.

Thank you. That answer was quite detailed on both points. On the conversation aspect, you mentioned the range of individuals and organisations that you have spoken to so far. Are they content with the approach that has been taken in the bill or have they raised concerns?

There are obvious risks associated with legislating before policy is fully developed. Has consideration been given to the challenges that that creates for proper parliamentary scrutiny? What, if anything, has been put in place to reduce those risks and to support scrutiny, despite the lack of policy development?

Have you ruled out adding to the number of instruments that are subject to the affirmative procedure? Do you think that you have struck the right balance between the amount of affirmative instruments and other instruments?

What are the plans and timescales for the on-going policy development discussions with stakeholders?

I have one final question, which is about the affirmative and super-affirmative procedures. Would you consider them if the committee made some recommendations with regard to some of the powers?

Tim Eagle wants to comment.